Author Topic: Is the bullying and hatred of liberals a sin? (Read 3735 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **on:** March 10, 2014, 05:36:20 AM »

This is for all of you pacifist Catholics out there, which is why you are the reason the Right always loses against the Left, which is greatly militant and intolerant.

What after all is the bullying of liberals as "babykillers" compared to liberals supporting the muder of millions of children every year in this country?

What after all is the bullying of liberals as "too soft on Communism" compared to American liberals back in the '30s who embraced the Republic in Spain against Franco?

What after all is the bullying of liberals as "fairy-lovers" compared to liberals since the McGovern compaign actively supporting sodomite "marriage"?

What after all is the bullying of liberals as "socialists" compared to liberals calling those on the Right "nαzιs" and "fascists" and "reactionaries"?

What after all is the bullying of liberals as "immoral wierdos" compared to the Hollywood Ten, back in the 1950's, who actively supported communist policies?

Anyway, if you are missing my point, the point is this: Catholics cannot be friends or supporters of people who hate our beliefs and our Faith, and neither should we be "easy on them" or "nice to them."

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2014, 06:22:02 AM »

Bullying?

Nothing you write above is "bullying". It might be railing, but it is not bullying. The question is whether, in a particular context, such talk is appropriate not whether it is all right to get even with one's political (and spiritual) enemy.

We need to never use the word bully when it does not apply. Like racist, it is rapidly losing any real meaning.

soulguard · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2014, 08:04:20 AM »

I think TG20 means that we should challenge people who are proudly espousing rival beliefs.
Generally this is true, but how we challenge them is a matter of strategy.
If they are unlikely to convert to your beliefs, you just undermine their beliefs by putting some idea into their head. Then in time they might come round. If there is an audience watching the exchange, then you ought to stand up for the true church of Christ because you are being tested by Him at that moment. If there is no audience, then there is not much point in arguing with them, unless you think you have a chance of converting them.

You cannot convert someone if their intellect is prone to delirium and self delusion and is biased against objective truth. You will know if they love truth and are willing to listen by their willingness to learn a thing of the highest importance to their soul. You will also know if it is pointless when you see all of their subjective traits putting a wall between them and you. Ironically the enemies of the truth like to think they have the truth, but are unwilling to allow scrutiny of it and instead they go on the attack all the time, this is because their opinions are a means of satisfying their desires.
It is their desires that keeps them from the truth, if they love sin, they will not listen to the truth or even think about Catholicism, and that is before they learn about how the Catholic church considers sin. If they love evil, their opinions will be a way of justifying it, and there is no hope for them unless they abandon the sins that put their mind into this delirium they are constantly in. They are in a trance, asleep, prone to reaction and ruled by impulse, and it is not correct to consider them as simply in "error", because it is worse than that, they have the same hatred of the truth they would have if they had been hypnotized to that effect. Sure their televisions and radio reinforces their delusions, and as for protestants, their sins and desires are the thing that interprets their "scriptures" ( the edited version of the holy bible) and not the Holy Ghost. I speak from experience. This is how it is.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2014, 10:21:09 AM »

If you use such terms in a situation merely because it makes you feel better to do so, then I believe it to be railing.

If you use such terms in a situation because it may truly shine the light on what a person is advocating--even if doing so doesn't convince anyone--then it is absolutely appropriate.

I think I understood what Traditional Guy 20 was saying, but using the word bullying in such a context is ridiculous. When I was a child I learned a saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Someone who uses unkind words may be mean, but such is not bullying unless it is accompanied by a threat. The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), for example, is not bullying when it calls people "anti-Semitic" with no basis in fact; they are bullying because the way it does so implicitly carries threats of litigation. and impoverishment.

We need to use words according to their meaning, not according to the New Speak dictionary.

crossbro · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2014, 11:27:30 AM »

The problem is the Church.

If the Church does not use an iron fist on issues such as fag sex or baby murder then what is the point ?

Nancy Peℓσѕι is literally the poster Catholic now. The govner of my state, Sandoval attends daily mass and receives communion, yet on his website he states he is prochoice. A position which makes him ipso-facto excommunicated. The Church does nothing.

The Church needs to formulate a contract and a censor of all members, Needs to financially audit members for tithing and needs to throw out the scuм. The Church then needs to authorized official crucifixes and if you don't have one you cannot receive communion.

But of course the new Pope heretic is a fag enabler who wants to focus on pastoral care and not silly matters like abortion. He steals crucifixes off dead bodies and tries to pry apart children's praying hands. In fact, his quotes are being posted outside abortion clinics to mock good Christians and he is being heralded on gαy websites.

johnb104 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2014, 07:25:29 PM »

Bullying? What bullying? If most of that stuff is bullying, then we may as well do everything but stop praying for conversion.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2014, 11:48:12 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

If you use such terms in a situation merely because it makes you feel better to do so, then I believe it to be railing.

If you use such terms in a situation because it may truly shine the light on what a person is advocating--even if doing so doesn't convince anyone--then it is absolutely appropriate.

I think I understood what Traditional Guy 20 was saying, but using the word bullying in such a context is ridiculous. When I was a child I learned a saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Someone who uses unkind words may be mean, but such is not bullying unless it is accompanied by a threat. The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), for example, is not bullying when it calls people "anti-Semitic" with no basis in fact; they are bullying because the way it does so implicitly carries threats of litigation. and impoverishment.

We need to use words according to their meaning, not according to the New Speak dictionary.

What I am saying is that to a member on the Left to use the above quotes against them is "bullying them" and "hurting their feelings."

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2014, 12:33:21 AM »

Is the bullying and hatred of liberals a sin?

If you guard hatred in your soul for anybody it is a sin. The behaviour that is bullying is also a sin. They would need to be mentioned in confession.

clare · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2014, 12:31:28 PM »

Quote

THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT : "Thou shalt not kill"
...
Sinful Anger Is Also Forbidden By The Fifth Commandment

The Jєωs, with singular dullness of apprehension, thought that to abstain from taking life with their own hands was enough to satisfy the obligation imposed by this Commandment. But the Christian, instructed in the interpretation of Christ, has learned that the precept is spiritual, and that it commands us not only to keep our hands unstained, but our hearts pure and undefiled; hence what the Jєωs regarded as quite sufficient, is not sufficient at all. For the Gospel has taught that it is unlawful even to be angry with anyone: But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, "Raca," shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, "Thou fool," shall be in danger of hell fire. From these words it clearly follows that he who is angry with his brother is not free from sin, even though he conceals his resentment; that he who gives indication of his wrath sins grievously; and that he who does not hesitate to treat another with harshness, and to utter contumelious reproaches against him, sins still more grievously.

This, however, is to be understood of cases in which no just cause of anger exists. God and His laws permit us to be angry when we chastise the faults of those who are subject to us. For the anger of a Christian should spring from the Holy Spirit and not from carnal impulse, seeing that we should be temples of the Holy Ghost, in which Jesus Christ may dwell.
...
Love Of Neighbour Inculcated

The mandatory part of this Commandment, as Christ our Lord enjoins, requires that we have peace with all men. Interpreting the Commandment He says: If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift, etc.

Charity To All Commanded

In explaining this admonition, the pastor should show that it inculcates the duty of charity towards all without exception. In his instruction on the precept he should exhort the faithful as much as possible to the practice of this virtue, since it is especially included in this precept. For since hatred is clearly forbidden by this Commandment, as whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, it follows, as an evident consequence, that the Commandment also inculcates charity and love.
...

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

Nishant · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2014, 12:43:34 PM »

On the contrary, the eminent Fr. Felix Salvany assures us that true charity itself and zeal for Christian truth can and often does require a certain forcefulness.

Quote

Chapter 21 Personal Polemics and Liberalism

"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines" some may say, "but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?" We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.

The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason—and substantial reason—on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.

The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves—if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them—they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat ["out of the fight"], he can do no more mischief.

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an "i'" As a French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal—a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.

Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.

And St. Francis De Sales, the gentle Doctor concurs, “The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied."

wallflower · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2014, 12:53:58 PM »

Bullying and hatred of anyone is a sin, no matter what it's compared to. We cannot justify sin by comparing it to others. Doing so compounds our own sin and renders us incapable of true contrition and reparation.

But what is the difference between the Catholic definition of bullying and hatred and the liberals' definition of bullying and hatred? That is a different story. And a long one!

BTNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2014, 03:22:10 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Bullying and hatred of anyone is a sin, no matter what it's compared to. We cannot justify sin by comparing it to others. Doing so compounds our own sin and renders us incapable of true contrition and reparation.

But what is the difference between the Catholic definition of bullying and hatred and the liberals' definition of bullying and hatred? That is a different story. And a long one!

"Bullying" is a modernist's buzzword and is basically meaningless.

Hatred in a limited sense (zeal for God's Law and an aversion to sin and those who wontonly and habitually indulge in it) is not only not a sin but is a requirement for any serious Catholic (see the repeated calls for such hatred in the Psalms for example).

Also, it is worth noting that Our Lord admonishes us not to hate our enemies, not God's.

wallflower · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2014, 05:22:14 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: wallflower
Bullying and hatred of anyone is a sin, no matter what it's compared to. We cannot justify sin by comparing it to others. Doing so compounds our own sin and renders us incapable of true contrition and reparation.

But what is the difference between the Catholic definition of bullying and hatred and the liberals' definition of bullying and hatred? That is a different story. And a long one!

"Bullying" is a modernist's buzzword and is basically meaningless.

I agree that is has become a buzzword. However bullies have existed since Cain and Abel. Just because liberals have hijacked the word doesn't mean it is meaningless, objectively speaking. There is room for it in a Catholic understanding and it would be categorized under sins against charity. Picking on someone and intimidating them for no good reason is sinful whether one, both or neither of you is liberal. Call it by another name if you wish, the concept remains the same and under normal circuмstances, it is sinful.

Hatred in a limited sense (zeal for God's Law and an aversion to sin and those who wontonly and habitually indulge in it) is not only not a sin but is a requirement for any serious Catholic (see the repeated calls for such hatred in the Psalms for example).

Also, it is worth noting that Our Lord admonishes us not to hate our enemies, not God's.

Wouldn't God's enemies be our own? We are to pray for them. And there again, what is your definition of hatred? Would you wish for their damnation? Would you resent their contrition and conversion?

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:10:15 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

"Bullying" is a modernist's buzzword and is basically meaningless.

Hatred in a limited sense (zeal for God's Law and an aversion to sin and those who wontonly and habitually indulge in it) is not only not a sin but is a requirement for any serious Catholic (see the repeated calls for such hatred in the Psalms for example).

Also, it is worth noting that Our Lord admonishes us not to hate our enemies, not God's.

Well said. I think we are too influenced by libertarianism, liberalism, pacifism and hippie values on here that we tolerate what is evil and needs to be crushed.

BTNYC · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:55:21 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

I agree that is has become a buzzword. However bullies have existed since Cain and Abel. Just because liberals have hijacked the word doesn't mean it is meaningless, objectively speaking. There is room for it in a Catholic understanding and it would be categorized under sins against charity. Picking on someone and intimidating them for no good reason is sinful whether one, both or neither of you is liberal. Call it by another name if you wish, the concept remains the same and under normal circuмstances, it is sinful.

No. Cain was not a "bully." Cain was a murderer. Murder is the first of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Justice and is a bout as different from "bullying" as an elephant is from an ant. Do you see why precision in terms is so vital, and the confusion that arises when we throw terms around willy-nilly?

"Bullying," as everyone used to understand that term before feminists and fαɢɢօts got hold of it, is the act that is committed when a bigger, boorish child pushes around a smaller, weaker one. This is behavior that should be discouraged in children, but it is as natural and inevitable as any other childish behavior. It's a matter best left to parents and schoolmarms.

Murder, assault, and harassment are all, to varying degrees, intrinsically sinful. Killing, violence, and confrontation, however, are not intrinsically sinful. What separates these superficially similar lists of acts is intention and circuмstance. Throwing the word "bullying" around in the same fashion that our feminized, enfaggened culture does confuses matters by failing to make these distinctions and, before you know it, you're placing the Murder of Abel in the same category as children "picking on" one another.

Men are aggressive by nature and by God's Will. If a man puts that aggression to bad use by harassing someone unjustly, he commits sin. If he puts that aggressiveness to good use by confronting a sodomite or a heretic, he does good. Feminist sloganeering about "Bullies" fails to make this distinction, and damns all male aggression out of hand as "bullying." It behooves us to not play as fast and loose with language as the Enemies of the Faith do. And speaking of enemies:

Quote from: wallflower

Wouldn't God's enemies be our own? We are to pray for them. And there again, what is your definition of hatred? Would you wish for their damnation? Would you resent their contrition and conversion?

Yes, God's enemies are supposed to be ours. But because man is fallen and prideful, most of our enemies tend to be "our" enemies; those who have trespassed against us. It is these to whom we must dispense with hate and show mercy.

A pernicious heretic, or apostate, or Satanist, or atheistic hater of God is God's enemy. We are to avoid their company like the plague. We are to condemn them verbally whenever possible, and, in Christian nations, the secular arm is to deal with such persons with utmost severity, including killing them. That is the kind of hatred the Holy Ghost commands through the words of King David:

Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pine away because of thy enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me. Psalm 138:21-22

Not for nothing have the Modernists removed that Psalm from the "Liturgy of the Hours." They will espouse God's mercy all day long, but will have no talk of His Justice. Let us embrace both. God wills for all men to be saved, and so must we. But we know full well that all men will not be saved. And the saints in heaven do not weep for the condemned souls in hell, rather they rejoice that God's Justice has been done.